Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[StephenGoranson]

The more the "moderation" here is biased, the more scholarly progress will occur elsewhere.

[Peter Kirby]

The more the "moderation" here is biased, the more scholarly progress will occur elsewhere.

You haven't even reported any posts.

[StephenGoranson]

Consider this a report of biased "moderation"--but you may move it, again, it to "nowhere."

[Peter Kirby]

For you to pretend to limit his expertise suchly, after extolling it repeatedly, is amoral.

Your dishonesty is saddening.

The more the "moderation" here is biased, the more scholarly progress will occur elsewhere.

Consider this a report of biased "moderation"--but you may move it, again, it to "nowhere."

I moved them all back here, where everyone can see how you're acting.

[StephenGoranson]

And that is your prerogative.

What I attempted to do in this thread is to separate two questions:
1) the date of the Voss hand, modern according to A. T.
and
2) who did that.
Maybe I have failed to make that distinction, with some.

[Secret Alias]

Again is the most knowledgeable person necessarily the most intuitive person?

[StephenGoranson]

So, S. A., are you now claiming A.T.'s paleographic dating was mistaken, maybe because you are more "intuitive" than he?

[Secret Alias]

No I'm saying

1. Paleography is primarily a descriptive enterprise
2. Do the same characteristics which lead to excellent descriptive ability also lead one to be more right than wrong with regards to forgery identification

[Secret Alias]

Why is the Tselikas the best paleographer? He's seen the most manuscripts. Does seeing the most manuscripts necessarily lead to the ability to identify forgeries? Not so sure we're all robots and we just need to download data and then the truth comes out. Not sure what would make a forgery detector. But in this case I have my doubts that if the circumstances were different and he was at the Jerusalem Patriarchate and he came across this manuscript by accident I think he doesn't spot it immediately as a forgery. There is a back history with the manuscript. That's why juries try to remove taint from their pools.

If you tell Tselikas there is some question about this manuscript we know what he said. But if you just handed him the manuscript with no backstory, would he have come to the same conclusion?

[Secret Alias]

Analogies.

Michelangelo has to be the best housepainter.

Bach would be a prolific composer of commercial jingles.

The restaurant of the chef that wins the TV show Chopped will have the best food.

A prostitute would make a great wife.

Someone that has good taste in clothes will be a good home decorator.

A nice guy in public is a nice guy in private.

Someone that writes well can speak well.

Someone that has good rhythm musically would also be a good dancer.

A champion cyclist would also be a good driver.

A fun guy on a vacation would also be a best friend for life.

Not sure that the best paleographer in the world would always be right about what's a forgery. Not sure that he wouldn't be right either. What's acceptable here? 50% of the time right? 35% of the time? 60%? I don't think he'd be right 100% of the time. It's harder question to answer.

I think the bottom line is you have to examine the rational basis to the arguments one by one and if they seem reasonable, maybe he's right. Not sure faith is the answer.